This is what we're up against

I hate to keep kicking this steaming pile, really I do, but the news is teeming with rancid rhetoric worth passing along.

Now, if we can agree once again that it's Liberty (not the Big Gulp) that's under attack, we can go straight to the idiocy of Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast. Here's what he said on Saturday:

"There's only one way to say something like this, and it's loud and proud and without apology: I wholeheartedly support Mike Bloomberg's war on sugar. It's unassailable as policy. Refined sugar is without question the worst foodstuff in the world for human health, and high-fructose corn syrup is little better. We are a fat country getting fatter and fatter, and these mountains of refined sugar that people ingest are a big part of the reason. The costs to the health-care system are enormous, so the public interest here is ridiculously obvious. Obesity is a killer. Are we to do nothing, in the name of the 'liberty' that entitles millions of people to kill themselves however they please, whatever their diabetes treatments costs their insurers?

"We have this 'liberty' business completely backward in this country, and if Bloomberg can start rebalancing individual freedom and the public good, God bless him, I say."

"It's a policy designed to guide people toward a certain kind of behavior. This talk of 'freedom' is absurd."

That, my friends, is nothing short of breathtaking contempt for personal responsibility. Tomasky makes it clear that he's afraid to meet life's opportunities and risks on his own, preferring to be swaddled in a blanket of government regulations.

His bald presumption that "we have this 'liberty' business completely backward in this country" is so false as to be laughable -- truth is, as a nation we're moving away from Liberty. His wish that government engage in "rebalancing individual freedom and the public good" ignores the fact that our individual liberties aren't merely eroding -- they're on the verge of collapse.

In other words, Tomasky and his anti-libertarian cronies rest their case on irresponsibility and lies.

This is the same ideology that routinely disarms law-abiding citizens, infringes constitutional rights and outsources personal defense to government authorities. It stifles excellence by promoting equal outcome and calling it "equal opportunity."

It "confuses the distinction between government and society," holding that each of us is entitled to government-approved and taxpayer-funded nourishment, housing, education, employment, healthcare and financial security, from cradle to grave.

Michael Tomasky, following his idol HRH Michael Bloomberg, carries the standard for those who would see this great country, which owes its very existence to courageous Founders who stood for Liberty, once and for all destroyed.

In the interest of clarity

in·fringe verb \in-ˈfrinj\

transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Origin : Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break (first known use 1513)

From today's edition of The New York Times

The Center for Consumer Freedom is running this full-page ad in today's edition of The New York Times, challenging HRH Michael Bloomberg's proposed large-soda ban.

I ask again: Is it possible that this is what it takes to finally push New Yorkers over the edge? For cryin' out loud, People -- get 'hold of yourselves, pull together and get rid of this assclown!

Nanny (defined)

For a moment, try to ignore that the specific target of HRH Michael Bloomberg's latest nannying is large servings of "sugary drinks." Instead, think of it as manifest ignorance of Liberty in general -- because that's what it is.

With that in mind, check out what HRH Bloomberg said to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Thursday:

"We've got to do something [about 'obesity']. Everybody is wringing their hands saying we've got to do something. Well, here is a concrete thing.

"You can still buy large bottles in stores. But in a restaurant, 16 ounces is the maximum that they would be able to serve in one cup. If you want to order two cups at the same time, that's fine. It's your choice.

"We're not taking away anybody's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup."

"It's not perfect. It's not the only answer. It's not the only cause of people being overweight -- but we've got to do something. We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health."

"I would just like to force the consumer to hopefully move over to the less fattening drinks and everybody will be better off."

That's one of the most un-American, anti-libertarian rants I've heard in a very long time. As I said of HRH Bloomberg in November of 2010:

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is...an arrogant son of a bitch who treats the U.S. Constitution like a menu, and for whom patriotism is little more than a hat he wears only for certain public appearances."

Again, it's not about soda pop -- or, for that matter, about trans-fats or firearms or smoking. It's about Liberty.

If you ever forget that, just remember what HRH Bloomberg said:

"We're not taking away anybody's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand...."

Get it?

Ridicule (illustrated)

As I posted that last 'toon, a sendup of the iconic Gonzalez Flag of the Texas Revolution, it struck me -- for all of the truly consequential liberties stolen from The People, will it take an attack on the Big Gulp to get citizens off their complacent asses?

That's a sad commentary. Then again, whatever it takes...

Woman, 36, wants a nanny

"If you offer me an apple and a candy bar, I'll pick the candy bar every time. I'd rather you'd only offer me the apple."

(Erin Burnett on last night's edition of CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront," expressing her personal support of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's efforts to dictate what his pliant subjects eat, drink and do.)

'Winchester Model 67: A Product of Another Era'

Last year I lamented that Gil Sengel's excellent article on the history and development of the Winchester Model 67 had vanished from Google Books. Months of occasional (but persistent) cyber-sleuthing finally paid off -- I found the January-February 2009 issue of Rifle, which includes the article, on an ftp site.

To download the magazine in pdf format, right-click here and select "Save target as" or "Save link as." Open the file, flip to page 64 and start enjoying "Winchester Model 67: A Product of Another Era."

Nanny says: 'Downsize me!'

[Here's Mayor Michael Bloomberg's latest assault on Liberty. Why the citizens of New York haven't yet rid themselves of this Enemy of The People is beyond me.]

Bloomberg administration proposes ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces

New York Daily News / Thursday, May 31, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg is a big soda scrooge.

After taking on smoking, trans-fats and restaurant calorie counts, Hizzoner has yet another health hazard in his crosshairs: oversized sugary drinks.

The city is working on a plan to ban large soft drinks and other sweet beverages in eateries, theaters and most other venues, City Hall announced Wednesday.

The new rules, which could take effect next March, would prohibit cups larger than 16 ounces of any liquid that contains more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. That targets sodas, sweetened ice tea and energy drinks. Diet sodas and milk-based beverages -- even calorie laden milkshakes -- will remain lawful.

"Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, 'Oh, this is terrible,'" Bloomberg told The New York Times. "New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something."

The ban will extend to food carts, delis, even concession stands in stadiums and arenas, but not supermarkets and grocery stores, according to the administration's proposal.

Cups bigger than 16 ounces would disappear from self-serve fountains in fast-food joints, although refills would still be allowed.

The anti-sweet drinks crusade got a bitter reception from the beverage industry.

"There they go again. The New York City Health Department's unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top," said Stefan Friedman, spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association.

"The city is not going to address the obesity issue by attacking soda because soda is not driving the obesity rates," he argued.

Some New Yorkers also thought the plan will fizzle out.

"He can try, but he can't stop people from getting what they want,” said cabbie Morshed Chowbhury, 27, of Jackson Heights, Queens. “Some days I can't survive without coffee or big sodas."

Victor Diaz, 24, was more receptive to the upcoming regulation.

"It will all depend on the person. But at least he's trying to help New Yorkers eat better," Diaz said of Bloomberg.

He added that he just opted for a Gatorade rather than a Big Gulp on a recent run to 7-Eleven, seemingly not realizing the sports drink will also be banned under the proposed program.

The mayor, who some disparage as Nanny Bloomberg for his plethora of prohibitions, has been waging a lengthy war against the soda scourge. During his time in office, he unsuccessfully lobbied for a state soda tax and tried to stop he purchase of soft drinks with food stamps.

The administration is planning to push the plan through the Board of Health, the same body that authorized restaurant letter grades and calorie count postings. No additional authorization is required, sources said.

If the big-drink dryout will pan out, people will still be able to buy a double dosage.

Helen O'Connor, 40, from SoHo, said she plans to do just that.

"He's going overboard," she said of the mayor.

"If I can't buy one big drink, I'll buy two smaller ones."

Doc Watson: 1923 - 2012

"Just one of the people"

Reading Room: 'The Tyranny of Conservative Clichés'

[This came to me in yesterday's "New Common Sense" e-newsletter from The Heritage Foundation. It's spot-on, an excellent illustration of how right-wing ideologues tend to make shit up that supports a neo-conservative agenda but sabotages the cause of Liberty.]

The Tyranny of Conservative Clichés

Everyone has an ideology -- a set of bedrock principles through which to view the world. Jonah Goldberg is cool with that. But he has a problem with people -- mainly liberals -- who deny having an ideology. In his latest book, The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas, Goldberg argues that liberals hide their ideology behind tired aphorisms, such as "violence never solved anything" or the Constitution is a "living document."

Unlike liberals, conservatives admit to having an ideology (although we prefer the term philosophy). We are also comfortable enough with our intellectual history that we don't shy away from arguments, invoking authorities from the Bible and Publius to Hayek and Reagan. Nevertheless, conservatives use clichés, as everyone does. Here are some we should avoid:

"America is a Christian Nation."

It's tempting unleash this cliché when confronted with the Left’s hostility towards religion. But, fellow conservatives, resist.

Yes, Christian morals and many biblical principles influenced the American Founders, and yes, Christianity has thrived in America. But America is not a Christian Nation in the strict sense of the term: Christianity isn’t the official religion to the exclusion of all others, nor is it the basis for membership in the political community.

The better way to defend Christianity's place in the public square is by arguing for religious liberty. The Founders all agreed that practitioners of every faith have a right to the free exercise of their religion -- in their houses of worship and in the public square. They enshrined that right in the First Amendment. Why use an inaccurate cliché when you have the original meaning of the First Amendment on your side?

"States' Rights"

Yes, the Federal Government is out of control. But, sometimes we utter two little words that undermine our entire constitutional system rather than protecting it from unlimited government: states' rights.

States don't have rights. People do.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution are states or any other government -- federal, state, or local -- said to possess rights. Rather, states have powers. The much beloved, if often ignored, Tenth Amendment says "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Not only is it incorrect to speak of states' rights, but the expression was the rallying cry of segregationists. Since no right-thinking conservative abides such arguments, let’s just drop the term "states' rights" once and for all.

If you're concerned about federal encroachments on state sovereignty or the erosion of federalism -- as you should be -- then speak of federal encroachments on state sovereignty or the erosion of federalism. Or, of the need to restore limited constitutional government, reinvigorate local self-government, decentralize power, and check the growth of out-of-control government. With so many great formulations to choose from, why weaken the case for liberty by relying on "states' rights"?

"That's Socialism"

American conservatives needlessly undermine their arguments by labeling every liberal program or policy as "socialism." This claim is incorrect -- American liberals are generally progressives, not socialists. Socialism, strictly speaking, involves the government’s ownership of the means of production in a society. In a socialist economy, there are no private corporations that manufacture goods. Factories and companies belong to the state. By contrast, progressives are more insidious in allowing for markets and private ownership of corporations, while controlling them through extensive regulation and government spending.

Conservatives need not rely on the S word to argue against liberals -- there's plenty wrong with progressivism. Better yet, demonstrate what's wrong in principle and in practice with a particular liberal program instead of relying on a debatable label.

"Small Government"

We conservatives are against "big government," so we must be for "small government," right? Wrong. We're for limited government. Here is the difference. The Constitution creates a federal government of enumerated (read: limited) powers. When Congress acts within its legitimate scope -- for instance, national defense -- then it can do a lot. There is nothing inherently contradictory about a limited government conservative supporting strong national defense, because that is within the federal government's constitutional responsibility. On the other hand, for areas outside of the federal government's constitutional scope (Obamacare, anyone?), there is no role -- big, small, or medium.

Conservatives use clichés, but not because we shy away from arguments or deny having an ideology. Clichés can be true statements summarizing a longer argument: "there's no such thing as a free lunch" demonstrates that everything has a cost that someone must shoulder. Or clichés can be incorrect arguments masquerading as obvious statements. It's the latter that conservatives should eradicate from our language.

Only one of these guys is right

Here's a hint: It's not Donald Trump. (Sorry if I spoiled the surprise.)

On Sunday's edition of ABC News "This Week," columnist George Will questioned why Mitt Romney is hosting a fundraising event today with Trump, a notorious birther:

"I do not understand the cost benefit here. The costs are clear. The benefit -- what voter is going to vote for him because he is seen with Donald Trump? The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious, it seems to me. Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics."

Typically, this was Trump's retort via Twitter:

"George Will may be the dumbest (and most overrated) political commentator of all time. If the Republicans listen to him, they will lose."

George Will crystallized perfectly Donald Trump's value to the political process. Positively brilliant.

On Decoration Day, Ingersoll

"These heroes are dead. They died for liberty. They died for us. They are at rest. They sleep in the land they made free under the flag they rendered stainless, under the solid pines, the sad hemlocks, the tearful willows, the embracing vines. They sleep beneath the shadows of the clouds, careless alike of sunshine or storm, each in a windowless palace of rest. Earth may run red with other wars; they are at peace. In the midst of battle, in the roar of conflict, they found the serenity of death. I have one sentiment for the soldier, living and dead. Cheers for the living, and tears for the dead."

(From speaker's notes attributed to Robert Green Ingersoll, said to have been delivered in his hometown of Dresden, New York on what we know now as Memorial Day, 1866. Mrs. KintlaLake gifted me with Ingersoll's words this morning.)

Remembrance

If you are able,
save them a place
inside of you
and save one backward glance
when you are leaving

for the places they can no longer go.

Be not ashamed to say
you loved them
though you may
or may not have always.

Take what they have left
and what they have taught you
with their dying
and keep it with your own.

And in that time
when men decide and feel safe
to call the war insane
take one moment to embrace
those gentle heroes
you left behind.

(Written on 1 January 1970 by U.S. Army Maj. Michael D. O'Donnell, a native of Columbus, Ohio. Maj. O'Donnell was listed as MIA on 24 March 1970 at Dak To, Vietnam, declared KIA on 7 February 1978.)

First words to the new soldier

I've collected hundreds of military manuals, in pdf form, over the last several years. It often strikes me how changes in mission and culture, beyond tactics and technology, have shaped their messages.

For example, the 2003 edition of The Soldier's Guide begins:

The Soldier is the ultimate guardian of America's freedom. In over 120 countries around the world, Soldiers like you are protecting our Nation's freedom and working to provide a better life for oppressed or impoverished peoples. It is no accident our Army succeeds everywhere we are called to serve -- the loyalty and selfless service of the American Soldier guarantee it.

Today our Army is fighting directly for the American people. This global war on terrorism is about our future. It's about ensuring our children and grandchildren enjoy the same liberties we cherish. While difficult tasks remain, victory is certain. The efforts and sacrifices of the American Soldier will assure it.

Compare that to the opening paragraph of the 1941 edition of the Soldier's Handbook:

You are now a member of the Army of the United States. That Army is made up of free citizens chosen from among a free people. The American people of their own will, and through the men they have elected to represent them in Congress, have determined that the free institutions of this country will continue to exist. They have declared that, if necessary, we will defend our right to live in our own American way and continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges which are granted to the citizens of no other nation. It is upon you, and the many thousands of your comrades now in the military service, that our country has placed its confident faith that this defense will succeed should it ever be challenged.

Notice that the more current version of the basic field manual alludes to (so-called) "nation building" and carries an unmistakably political tone. Sixty years earlier, it was all about defending the homeland.

This independent citizen-patriot, for one, favors the 1941 version.

Decided (2012 edition)

In 2008, I didn't share my choice for President until the Friday before Election Day. This time 'round I needed far less time to deliberate.

Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama represents, in my view, what's best for my country. Neither proposes to restore what we've lost. Neither has the courage to suggest that he intends to fix what's truly broken. And most important to me, neither Romney nor Obama has demonstrated that he values Liberty.

So today, 166 days before casting my ballot, I've decided to support Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

I categorically reject the simple-minded notion that I have only two viable choices, or that voting for anyone but the Republican nominee virtually guarantees the incumbent a second term.

The dominant parties and their wind-sock ideologies have failed us. Their candidates haven't earned my support.

On November 6th my vote will be a product of conscience, not calculation. Will yours?

Fig 1

(U.S. Patent 984,519 was awarded to John Moses Browning on February 14, 1911. The U.S. Military would adopt this design a month later as the M1911 pistol.)


(U.S. Patent 4,539,889 was awarded to Gaston Glock on September 10, 1985. This was the dawn of the Glock pistol in America. For a more familiar-looking design, check out Fig 24 of the same patent.)


(U.S. Patent 632,094 was awarded to John Moses Browning on August 29, 1899. This design would become the Winchester Model 1900 bolt-action .22 rifle, forerunner of my trusty Winchester Model 67.)

More Savage hype

Savage Arms Company produced more than 200,000 copies of the diminutive Savage Automatic Pistol -- a.k.a. Model 1907 -- between 1908 and 1920. As I said in yesterday's post, the gun is remembered more for over-the-top advertising than for defensive prowess.

Consider this 1914 pitch, pulled from The Saturday Evening Post.

Again, let's take a closer look at the hyperbolic, chauvinistic copy:

Is Your Wife Helpless or Dangerous --
in these times when more idlers
make more burglars and brutes?

These times make more idlers. More idlers mean more Burglars and Brutes. Burglars and Brutes break your house; shock your wife into permanent hysteria and mark your children with a horrible fear for life.

A ten shot, easy-to-aim Savage Automatic converts your helpless wife into a dangerous defender of her children -- more dangerous to face than a mother grizzly bear.

Fathers, it is a serious duty in these times to arm your home by day and by night with a Savage Automatic -- the one arm which every Brute and Burglar fears. They fear its 10 lightning shots, 2 to 4 more than others; they fear the novice's power to aim it as easy as pointing your finger. Therefore take pains that you get the Savage -- the one the thugs fear.

As harmless as a cat around the house, because it is the only automatic that tells by glance or touch whether loaded or empty.

Take home a Savage today. Or at least send for free booklet, "If You Hear a Burglar," written by a famous detective.

Allow me to state the obvious -- a quick flip through any modern-day gun magazine reveals that manufacturers' approach to women has changed dramatically over the last 98 years. Ads now speak directly to women, acknowledging their role as gun owners and empowered (not "helpless") defenders of life and Castle. That's a good thing.

Knowing Mrs. KintlaLake as I do, it's also a sure thing.

You want me to do what?

Back in the early 1900s, venerable Savage Arms produced a small-frame semi-automatic pistol chambered in .32. The marketing angle was an appeal to women in need of protection but afraid of firearms.

Most of the ads for this gun were either hyperbolic or chauvinist -- and usually both -- but this one takes the prize for lousy advice.

Here's a taste of the copy:

Shoot the First Shots Out of the Window!

That is the very best thing to do when you find a burglar in the house, says Wm. P. Sheridan, famous detective, in the Woman's World Magazine. Arouse the whole neighborhood with shots! These first two or three shots will cause neighbors to jump to the 'phone and call the police.

Save the rest of your shots in case the burglar attacks you.

Yes, you read that right -- exactly 100 years ago, encouraging an inexperienced shooter facing an intruder to fire a few rounds out the window was considered a good idea. I know we're talking about deadly force and home defense here, but honestly, I can't help laughing.

Notice that the ad included an offer of even more such wisdom. By mail, for six cents, a reader could get a copy of The Tenderfoot's Turn (written, incidentally, by one Bat Masterson). Can you imagine?

The truth about football -- and a whole lot more

"Talent will get you seven or eight wins. Discipline gets you to around nine. Leadership is when the magic starts happening."

(Urban Meyer, Ohio State Head Football Coach, speaking to the media today)

Still more from Iver Johnson

"Could you answer a call for help, meet a criminal, handle him without danger to yourself? Unarmed, you'd be helpless. Armed, you could uphold law and order."

(From a 1922 issue of The Outlook magazine -- and no, buying a gun to "uphold law and order" isn't particularly sound advice.)


"The whole truth of this preparedness idea just hit me. For years I have carried insurance on my life, health, house and household goods. I have tucked away a comfortable nest egg in the bank to forestall a rainy day and financial reverses. And all this while I have kidded myself into thinking that this was all the protection that any husband and father could throw around his family.

"Defending the lives of my loved ones against the felonious attacks of prowling burglars -- this never occurred to me.

"There isn't a streak of yellow in me. I've never been called a coward in all my life. I just didn't give it a thought. I've been so busy with -- "

(From a 1917 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. Now, as then, we can be sure that most Americans won't have this conversation with themselves and will not be prepared.)